An Agenda for Gender-fair Education

ZENAIDA QUEZADA-REYES

y long involvement with womens studies has made me sensitive to what I

read. I automatically classify books as either sexist or not. I examine the
participation of women and the biases against them in many books that I
use in teaching social science subjects. As one writer states:
Gender-fair education requires sensitivity,
determination, commitment, and vigilance.
The foundation of gender-fair education
is the cooperation and collaboration
among students, educational organizations, and other relevant institutions.

No one has ever devised a method for detaching the scholar from the circumstances
in life, from the fact of his involvement (conscious or unconscious) with a class, a set of
beliefs, a social position, or from the mere
activity of being a member of a society.
No production of knowledge in the human
sciences can ever ignore or disclaim its authors involvement as a human subject in his
own circumstance (Said, in Saigol 1995).

These principles must guide teachers, school

administrators, curriculum writers, and, most
important, the textbook writers, in eliminating patriarchal ideology in the classroom.

I support an antipatriarchal ideology and

envision a society that pursues gender equity
in the area of education. Gender-fair education involves the experiences, perceptions, and
perspectives of girls and women as well as boys
and men (DE, USA 1995). It aims to promote
the teaching and learning of gender equity,
highlighting female experiences as products of
historical and cultural processes.
Gender-fair education works on the following principles:
Men and women are born equal, and so
they must be given equal opportunities
to develop their potential.
All students have the right to a genderfair learning environment.
All education programs and career decisions should be based on the students interests and abilities, regardless of gender.
Gender-fair education incorporates issues
of social class, culture, ethnicity, religion,
sexual orientation, and age.

Philippine Schools Gendered Curriculum

Schools reflect the social, economic, and political structures and processes of a given society. They tend to reproduce the social order
and maintain the status quo (Cortes 1993).
Philippine society supports patriarchal ideology. The formal education system promotes
and propagates patriarchal ideology. The first
Church-run schools and tertiary educational
institutions were established in the 1600s under Spanish colonial rule. Only the sons of
Spaniards and upper-class Filipinos could attend. Their sisters entered beaterios, where they
were trained in housework, religious music, and
religious rituals. While men pursued higher
education, women stayed at home and took
care of their families. Even the Spanish Royal
Educational Decree of 1863, which established
the public school system in the Philippines, did
not allow women to go to school, and set up
89

90 HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION IN ASIAN SCHOOLS

training schools only for male teachers. The

Spanish Royal Decree of 1865 gave even more
privileges to men by extending the public
school system to the secondary level. Vocational and technical schools were established,
also only for men.
Under US colonial rule (1898-1946), the
Education Act of 1901 established the public
school system and free primary education. But
while women now had access to education,
schools continued to uphold traditional roles
of both men and women, as girls studied home
economics and boys took up practical arts.
Under Japanese colonial rule (1942-1945),
the Basic Principles of Education were the
following:
Present the Philippines as a member of
the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity
Sphere.
Eradicate the idea of relying upon Western nations, especially the United States
and Great Britain, and promote a culture
based on Filipinos identity as Asians.
Encourage people to be less materialistic.
Spread the Japanese language and stop the
use of English.
Promote elementary and vocational education.
Encourage people to be industrious.
Subjects were similar to those under the US
system, including social studies, arithmetic,
science, industrial arts for boys, and housekeeping and household arts for girls. The only difference was that the Japanese required students
to undergo military training.
Teachers were ordered to modify their instructional materials. Anything that hinted at
American ideology was to be discarded. Compliance, however, was more artificial than real
(Pangilinan 1954). The teachers remained loyal
to the United States and to the patriarchal ideology embodied in the US school curriculum.
After World War II, all prewar superintendents, supervisors, principals, and classroom

teachers were reappointed. They resumed

propagating the US curriculum, with emphasis on democratic values and community participation. At the primary, intermediate, and
secondary levels, boys and girls took up general subjectsmath, science, social studies,
English, Filipino, health and physical education, character education, and vocational education (UNESCO 1960). From the intermediate to secondary levels, however, boys took
up industrial arts, gardening, and club work,
while girls studied home economics, needlework, cooking and housekeeping, food selection and diet, and home nursing.
In 1957, the curriculum was revised to separate students as destined either for vocational
schools or college. General subjects were offered to both groups during the first two years
of secondary education. During the third and
fourth years, students preparing for college
took college-oriented courses; the rest took
vocational courses. Boys still took vocational
education and girls still took home economics.
In the 1970s, the government revised the
curriculum, but girls continued to take home
economics, and boys, practical arts. Real
change took place only in 1985, when the curriculum was further revised, allowing boys and
girls to choose between home economics and
practical arts. Boys were now able to learn sewing, cooking, and interior design, while girls
could learn carpentry and how to do electrical
repair.
Gendered Textbooks
An analysis (adapted from Saigol [1995]) of
selected Asian history textbooks being used in
Philippine secondary schools reveals their patriarchal construction of gender through their
writers (i) point of view, (ii) handling and interpretation of facts and events, (iii) definition of
concepts, (iv) images, and (v) in-depth analysis.
The textbooks examined are the following:

An Agenda for Gender-fair Education 91

Kabihasnang Asyano. 1989. Serye ng Secondary Education Development Program

(SEDP). Pilipinas: Kagawaran ng Edukasyon, Kultura at Isports.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott. 1967. A Short
History of the Far East. Philippines: Ken
Inc.
Leogardo, Felicitas. 1988. History of
Asian Nations. Manila: Sto. Nio Catholic House.
Pearn, B.R. 1970. An Introduction to the
History of Southeast Asia. Hongkong:
Sheck Wah Tong Printing Press.
The gender bias of textbooks may be explicit or implicit. It is explicit when men and
women are shown as having certain roles:
women as mothers and wives, for example, who
have to sew, weave, cook, clean, and take care
of children; and men as soldiers, leaders, and
citizens.
Of history books, Fernandez (1998) has this
to say:
Judging from what is written in history
books, one would be led to conclude that:
1. Women must have wombs a hundred times
bigger than their body size such that they
can beget thousands of male children with
one or two females only. This would explain the scarcity of females and the overwhelming presence of males in recorded
history;
2. Women do nothing but watch while men
single-handedly make history as conquering heroes, national liberators, victorious
generals, benevolent monarchs, wise lawgivers and some such;
3. Some women, on a few occasions, assist
men in history-making as when they sew a
flag made out of their skirts which the men
raise over a conquered territory or when
they use their feminine charms on the enemy to ferret out military or state secrets;
and

4. A few women, on rare occasions, make history somehow, and that is because they are
not truly women in the first place, but men
in womens bodies.

None of the textbooks examined show the

role of women in nation building, except when
they become national leaders after their husbands (or fathers) are assassinated (Corazon
Aquino, for example, and Sirimavo Bandaranaike). Otherwise, women are portrayed as
housewives and mothers who submit to their
husbands. Some mention that Asian women,
specifically Chinese women, have attained
equal rights. Yet, although women are given
the freedom to work for economic production,
they alone bear the burden of reproduction.
Implicitly, Asian history textbooks impart the
characteristics of maleness and femaleness. The
hidden voice in the text or subtext (Saigol
1995) is not openly articulated. The author
may not even be aware of it. The significant
events in Asian history are subtly used to dichotomize categories that represent masculine
and feminine characteristics: open/enclosed,
light/dark, good/bad, brave/timid, powerful/powerless, and so on. Gendered construction of history as masculine discusses war, bravery, aggression, conquest, fearlessness, and
dominance. Women, however, are objects of
male desire with no needs of their own as individuals. They are humble, respectful, good, and
pure. The words masculine and feminine
do not appear as biological and natural characteristics in the hidden text. But the manner
in which facts are presented are socially constructed as having male and female characteristics. In other words, the discourse used by
the writers has masculine and feminine
aspects (Saigol 1995). The patriarchal discourses appear in the following threads: masculine/feminine positioning, celebratory view
of history, glorification of the military, and
powerful state and submissive citizens.

92 HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION IN ASIAN SCHOOLS

Masculine/Feminine Positioning in Asian History

The triumph of democracy over communism
is prominent in discussions on Asian history.
In the discourse of Leogardo (1988), for example, Asian nations attained their true independence by rejecting communism. Before
democracy, there was darkness, misery, and
conflict, which are female. Under democracy, Asian nations experienced light, happiness, and independence, which are male.
Latourette (1967) projects the technologically advanced, male West and the backward,
female Far East. Western colonialization,
therefore, signified the development of Asian
civilization.
The discussion on conquest and subjugation
uses male and female imagery. The colonizer
was the male conqueror, liberator, and subjugator of female Asian countries and virgin
land. Asian history textbooks are stories of
conquest (by Kublai Khan, for example) and
colonization (by foreign powers) of well-established civilizations, which brought misery and
political, economic, and cultural dislocation.
The Celebratory View of History
Representations of Asian history as a series of
male political leaders glorify personalities such
as Kublai Khan, Emperor Akihito, Mao
Zedong, Khomeini, Nehru, Sukarno, and so
on, who are held up as role models for children. In the books, men are preoccupied with
war. Peace and happiness are invisible in the
stories of humankind.
Glorification of the Military
The narratives of the great kingdoms that
later on became nation states concentrate on
the military prowess of leaders. The description of strong Chinese leaders, the shogun of
Japan, colonization by the West, and World
War II, for example, send out the subtle message that leaders are strong, male command-

ers. Women are never portrayed as defending

their country.
The greatest military leaders are projected
as fighting for a just cause (as in Pakistan, for
example), mainly in defense of the Motherland,
mothers, and children.
Powerful State and Submissive Citizens
Asian history textbooks promote ideologies
of citizenship and the relationship between the
state and the citizen. The citizen is the passive,
infantilized, feminized Other of the patriarchal
state. The chapter on political systems of Asia
in the SEDP series sends a subtle message that
citizens must respect their leaders just as they
respect their own fathers.
Promoting Gender-fair Teaching Strategies
Gender-fair educators advocate the following (DE, USA 1997):
Be committed to learning and practicing
equitable teaching by being committed to
improving the needs and welfare of both
male and female students.
Use gender-specific terms to market opportunities. For example, if a technology
fair has been designed to appeal to girls,
mention girls clearly and specifically. Many
girls assume that gender-neutral language
in nontraditional fields means boys.
Modify content, teaching style, and assessment practices to make nontraditional subjects more relevant and interesting for female and female students.
Highlight the social aspects and usefulness
of activities, skills, and knowledge.
Recognize comments received from female
students; and explore social, moral, and environmental impacts of decisions, especially
those that would affect women.
When establishing relevance of material,
consider the different interests and life experiences that girls and boys may have.

An Agenda for Gender-fair Education 93

Choose a variety of instructional strategies

such as cooperative and collaborative work
in small groups, opportunities for safe risktaking, hands-on work, and opportunities
to integrate knowledge and skills (e.g., science and communication).
Provide specific strategies, special opportunities, and resources to encourage students to excel in areas of study in which
they are typically underrepresented.
Design lessons to explore many perspectives and to use different sources of information; refer to male and female experts.
Manage competitiveness in the classroom,
particularly in areas in which male students
typically excel.
Watch for biases (for example, in behavior
or learning resources) and teach students
strategies to recognize and work to eliminate inequities they observe.
Be aware of accepted gender-biased practices in physical activity (e.g., in team
sports, funding for athletes, and choices in
physical education programs).
Do not assume that all students are heterosexual.
Share information and build a network of
colleagues with a strong commitment to
equity.
Model nonbiased behavior: use inclusive,
parallel, or gender-sensitive language; question and coach male and female students
with the same frequency, specificity, and
depth; allow quiet students sufficient time
to respond to questions.
Have colleagues familiar with common
gender biases observe your teaching and
discuss any potential bias they may observe.
Be consistent over time.

The concept and principles of teaching strategies are useful in developing a gender-fair
education curriculum.
In conclusion, I would like to quote Saigol
(1995):

Human beings are gendered emotionally,

psychologically and politically because most
families are based on gendered relations of
inferiority and superiority. The family is the
first political unit. It is a biosocial, political, emotional and psychological space that is
riddled with concerns of power. It produces
gendered individuals, who, in turn, reproduce
gendered families.
Gendered thinking, that is, notions of
masculine and feminine seem to become
so infused with affect (negative and positive)
for both men and women, and so deeply ingrained, that social and political entities take
on gendered meanings for people consciously
and unconsciously.

This consciousness is reinforced by the

school system through the hidden curriculum
embodied in textbooks. The school as the second agent of socialization is equally important
in shaping the minds of individuals. The teacher
must take note of gendered construction of
reality in teaching and in the learning environment.
References
Cortes, Josefina. 1993. Explorations in the Theory and
Practice of Philippine Education: 1965-1993. Quezon
City: University of the Philippines Press.
Dorwick, Keith. 1997. Syllabus on the Introduction to
Gender, Sexuality and Literature. Kdorwick@uic.edu.
Exploration of an Idea: Gender Equity. 1995. Victoria,
B.C., Canada: Curriculum Branch, Ministr y of Education.
Gender Studies Curriculum. 1997. USA: Department
of Education.
Fernandez, Albina Pecson. 1998. Why Women Are
Invisible in History. A paper delivered during the
seminar-workshop, History Makes Women, Women
Make Herstory, 9-10 March 1998, at the University of the Philippines, Quezon City.
Kabihasnang Asyano. 1986. Manila: Kagawaran ng
Kultura at Isports.

94 HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION IN ASIAN SCHOOLS

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. 1967. A Shor t History of the
Far East. Philippines: Ken, Inc.
Leogardo, Felicitas. 1988. History of Asian Nations.
Manila: Sto. Nio Catholic House.
Pangilinan, Benito. 1954. Public Education in the Philippines. Quezon City: Bustamante Press.
Pearth, B. R. 1970. The Histor y of Southeast Asia.
Hongkong: Sheck Wah Tong Press.
Saigol, Rubina. 1995. Knowledge and Identity: Articulation of Gender in Educational Discourse in Pakistan. Lahore: ASR Publications.

Shara, Razavi, and Carol Miller. 1995. Gender Mainstreaming: A Study Efforts by the UNDP, the World
Bank and the ILO to Institutionalize Gender Issues.
Geneva: UNRISD/UNDP.
The Tenth Milestone. 1960. Report by the Education
Division USOM to the Philippines.
UNESCO. 1960. 50 Years of Education for Freedom.
Manila: National Printing Co.